• Elisabeth M Sebesta, Michael J Lipsky, Michele Nunez, Kimberly L Cooper, and Gina M Badalato.
• Department of Urology, NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY.
• Urology. 2018 Dec 1; 122: 37-43.

ObjectiveTo assess the incidence of violations to the National Resident Matching Program Code of Conduct during the Urology Match.Materials And MethodsWe sent a survey to all 285 applicants to a single urologic program during 2017 Match cycle; the questions pertained to illegal interview questions, postinterview communication, second-look qualifications, and the applicant's perceived impact of these factors.ResultsAt total of 166 responses were obtained (response rate 58%). Ninety-six (58%) applicants received follow-up communication from at least 1 program, the majority from multiple programs. Of those who received postinterview communication, 13% reported verbal communication, and 19% felt misled by communication to believe they had a higher chance of matching at a program. Fifty (30%) respondents did a second-look visit, and 44% reported feeling obligated to do so in order to match. Finally, 141 of 166 (85%) applicants reported being asked illegal questions regarding personal life, rank list, and/or other interviews. Female applicants reported being asked illegal questions significantly more frequently than male applicants (P < .01).ConclusionDuring the 2017 Urology Match, a high proportion of applicants experienced violations of the National Resident Matching Program Code of Conduct. Violations included illegal questions, postinterview written and verbal communication, and pressure to do second-look visits. These findings corroborate numerous anecdotal reports, and may provide the groundwork to improve the fairness of the residency application process for the future.Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.

21 keywords...

hide…